“Effective December 1, 2004, as
a current customer, you will have access to an increased supply of
POSILAC.”[1] This news from Monsanto to its customers
was disappointing for those around the world who understood its consequences.
Back in January, the company announced that they would reduce their
supply of the drug by 50%, after FDA inspectors discovered unacceptable
levels of contamination. Many people hoped that Posilac would quietly
disappear altogether. “If Monsanto gives this stuff up, it would be
a godsend to both cows and people,”[2] said Rick
North who heads up the campaign by Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility
to fight the drug. But on October 8, 2004, Monsanto announced it would
be increasing its supply back up to “at least 70%.”

Posilac is a genetically engineered
drug that increases milk production in cows by 10-15%. It is also
known as recombinant bovine growth hormone, rbGH, Bovine Somatotropin,
BST, and “Crack for Cows.” Its controversial history has left fifteen
years of frustrated whistleblowers strewn in its wake.

Early casualties were scientists
at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during the drug’s evaluation.
Chemist Joseph Settepani, in charge of quality control for the approval
process of veterinary drugs at the Center for Veterinary Medicine
(CVM), testified at a public hearing about threats to human safety.
Soon after, he was reprimanded, threatened, stripped of responsibilities,
and relocated a trailer at an experimental farm. In later testimony
before a congressional subcommittee, Settepani said, “Dissent [at
CVM] is not tolerated if it could seriously threaten industry profits.”[3]

Division director Alexander Apostolou
wrote in an affidavit, “Sound scientific procedures for evaluating
human food safety of veterinary drugs have been disregarded. I have
faced continuous pressure from my CVM superiors to reach scientific
conclusions favorable to the drug industry. . . . In my time at CVM
I have witnessed drug manufacturer sponsors improperly influence the
agency’s scientific analysis, decision-making, and fundamental mission.”[4]
Apostolou was forced out after he began to express his concerns.

FDA Veterinarian Richard Burroughs
said that agency officials “suppressed and manipulated data to cover
up their own ignorance and incompetence.”[5]
He also described how industry researchers would often drop sick cows
from studies, to make the drug appear safer. Burroughs had ordered
more tests than the industry wanted and was told by superiors he was
slowing down the approval. He was fired and his tests canceled.

The remaining whistle-blowers in
the FDA had to write an anonymous letter to Congress, complaining
of fraud and conflict of interest in the agency. They described one
FDA scientist who arbitrarily increased the allowable levels of antibiotics
in milk 100-fold. This was necessary before approving rbGH. Since
the drug increases the chance of udder infections, farmers inject
cows with more antibiotics. This leads to a higher risk of antibiotic
resistant diseases in cows and humans. According to the letter, Margaret
Miller authorized the increased levels. She had formerly conducted
research on rbGH while with Monsanto and then moved into the FDA department
that evaluated her own research.

Dr. Samuel Epstein, Professor at
the University Of Illinois School Of Public Health, cited numerous
potential or theoretical health dangers from rbGH, including “hormonal
and allergic effects . . . premature growth and breast stimulation
in infants,” and possibly cancer in adults.[6]
Epstein also received an anonymous box of stolen files from the FDA.
Documents revealed that in order to show that rbGH injections did
not interfere with fertility, industry researchers allegedly added
cows to the study that were pregnant prior to injection. Also, blood
hormone levels skyrocketed by as much as a thousand-fold after injections.[7]

Monsanto tried to silence Epstein.
Their public relations firm created a group called the Dairy Coalition,
which included university researchers whose work was funded by Monsanto,
and selected “third party” experts and organizations. Representatives
of the Dairy Coalition pressured editors of the USA Today, Boston
Globe, New York Times and others, to limit coverage of Epstein.

Hormones in Your Milk

Several claims made by FDA scientists
in defense of rbGH have not held up under scrutiny. For example, they
said that bovine growth hormone does not increase substantially in
milk from treated cows. The study they cited, however, shows a 26%
increase in the hormone. Furthermore, researchers injected cows with
only a 10.6 mg daily dose of rbGH compared to the normal 500 mg bi-weekly
dose used by farmers. In fact, they didn’t even use Monsanto’s rbGH,
but rather another version that was never approved. They then pasteurized
the milk 120 times longer than normal in an apparent attempt to show
that the hormone was destroyed during the process. They only destroyed
19% of the hormone. They then spiked the milk with powdered hormone—146
times the naturally occurring levels—heated that 120 times longer
than normal, and were then able to destroy 90% of the hormone. [8]FDA
scientists reported that 90% of the hormone was destroyed during pasteurization.[9]

The hormone most critics are concerned
about, however, is insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). Natural milk
contains IGF-1. Milk drinkers increase their levels of IGF-1.[10]
Studies suggest that pre-menopausal women below 50 year old with high
levels of IGF-1 are seven times more likely to develop breast cancer.[11]
Men are four times more likely to develop prostate cancer.[12]
IGF-1 is also implicated in lung and colon cancer. Milk from cows
treated with rbGH has significantly higher levels of IGF-1.[13]
(No comprehensive study has evaluated a direct link between rbGH and
human cancer.)

This potential link between rbGH
and cancer was one of the many controversial topics to be covered
in a four-part investigative news series at a Tampa-based Fox TV station.
But four days before the series was to air, Fox received a threatening
letter from Monsanto’s attorney. They pulled the show. The station
manager reviewed it, approved the content, and scheduled it for the
following week. A second letter arrived from Monsanto’s attorney,
this time threatening “dire consequences for Fox News.”[14]

The show was postponed indefinitely.
Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, the award winning investigative reporters
who had created the report for Fox, say that they were offered hush
money to leave the station and never speak about the story again.
They declined. So Fox’s corporate attorney led them in a series of
rewrites, attempting to soften the language and apparently appease
Monsanto. Six months and 83 rewrites later, the reporters were ultimately
fired for refusing to write in the script that the milk from treated
cows was the same as normal milk. The reporters argued that that Monsanto’s
own research showed a difference, such as the increased IGF-1 levels,
and even the FDA scientists had acknowledged this.

The reporters sued. Akre was awarded
$425,000 by a jury that agreed that Fox “acted intentionally and deliberately
to falsify or distort the plaintiffs’ news reporting on BGH,”[15]
and that Akre’s threat to blow the whistle was the reason she was
fired. But an appeals court overturned the verdict on the grounds
that the whistle-blower’s statute only protects people who threaten
to report a violation of a law, rule, or regulation. Distorting TV
news, evidently, is not technically illegal. Akre and Wilson now have
to pay a combined $196,500 to cover some of Fox’s legal costs. This
is on top of the $200,000 - $300,000 they already spent on their case.

Attacks on rbGH whistleblowers
are not limited to the US. In 1998, six Canadian government scientists
testified before the Senate that they were being pressured by superiors
to approve rbGH, even though they believed it was unsafe for the public.
Their detailed critique of the FDA’s evaluation of the drug showed
how the US approval process was flawed and superficial. They also
testified that documents were stolen from a locked file cabinet in
a government office, and that Monsanto offered them a bribe of $1-2
million to approve the drug without further tests. (A Monsanto representative
went on national Canadian television claiming that the scientists
had obviously misunderstood an offer for research money.) The Canadian
scientists later described how their superiors retaliated against
them for testifying. They were passed over for promotions, given impossible
tasks or no assignments at all, one was suspended without pay. Three
of the whistleblowers, who also spoke out on such controversial topics
as mad cow disease, were ultimately fired on July 14, 2004.

Most industrialized nations have
banned rbGH. Within the US, many school systems have also banned it
and several dairies refuse to use it. Oakhurst Dairy of Portland,
Maine, for example, requires its suppliers to sign a notarized affidavit
every six months. The Oakhurst label stated, “Our Farmers’ Pledge:
No Artificial Growth Hormones.” But on July 3, 2003, Monsanto sued
the dairy over their labels. Oakhurst eventually settled with Monsanto,
agreeing to include a sentence on their cartons saying that according
to the FDA no significant difference has been shown between milk derived
from rbGH-treated and non-rbGH-treated cows. The statement is not
true. FDA scientists had acknowledged the increase of IGF-1 in milk
from treated cows. Nonetheless, the misleading sentence had been written
years earlier by the FDA’s deputy commissioner of policy, Michael
Taylor. Prior to becoming an FDA official, Taylor was Monsanto’s outside
attorney. He later worked at the USDA on biotech issues, and later
became vice president of Monsanto.

Jeffrey M. Smith has been involved with genetically
modified (GM) foods for nearly a decade. He worked for non-profit and
political groups on the issue and in 1998, ran for U.S. Congress to raise
public awareness of the health and environmental impacts. To protect children-who
are most at risk from the potential health effects of GM foods-Smith proposed
legislation to remove the foods from school meals. He also proposed legislation
to help protect farmers from cross-pollination by GM crops. Later, he
was vice president of marketing for a GMO detection laboratory.

Smith has lectured widely, spoken at conferences,
and has been quoted in articles around the world. Prior to working in
this field, he was a writer, educator, and public speaker for non-profit
groups, advancing the causes of health, environment, and personal development.
This book Seeds of Deception, researched and written after he left the
industry, combines Smith's passion for these causes with his extensive
knowledge of the risks and cover-ups behind genetically modified foods.

Smith is the founding director of the Institute
for Responsible Technology, a member of the Sierra Club Genetic Engineering
Committee, and a member of the advisory board of the Campaign to Label
Genetically Engineered Foods. He has a master's degree in business administration
and lives with his wife in Iowa, surrounded by genetically modified corn
and soybeans.